"If researchers could report just the one finding they felt comfortable with, perhaps there would be no need to be dishonest."
Scientist speaking here. One finding in no finding. It's luck or mistake. If there's just one "finding" you're "comfortable with", it's not publication you should think about, it's changing what you do and how you do it.
"incentives associated with publishing in high-impact journals lead to loss of scientifically and ethically sound observations"
Bullcrap. And "that's all I have to say about that"
"Today's journals [...] favor [...] congruency over complexity"
Uhmm, sorry, what now? Why would one exclude the other? On the other hand, would they want journals that prefer complexity over congruency? Now, that would be a doozy.
"There are few, if any, places to publish one-off experiments that arenâ(TM)t part of a bigger story but might still be informative. So unless the researcher âoeinvests in a series of additional experiments to package the failed reproduction, that result will languish in laboratory notebooks,â"
Well, I don't think I could be convinced we should value un-reproducible one-off experimental "results". Ever. However, there's nothing stopping you people publish such "results", you know, there's the Internet and whatnot.
"a researcher who is able to show, with proper controls and statistics, that an extract from eucalyptus bark relieves pain under certain conditions. âoeIn todayâ(TM)s world, you canâ(TM)t publish that in a good journal,â Rajendran says. âoeYou would need to know which molecule it is"
Hell, good that it is so. There are still some people out there who actually like to know what the hell it is they put into their bodies and how it works (and that it actually works).